to the generall visible Church for their sakes and then to the particular Congregation as a part or member of that generall visible Church But if you meane it in the former sense as you doe and must or else you aequivocate with us from the beginning and throughout your whole Booke you fall into that extreme of the Brownists which you so labour to avoid For to take the Church in Mat. 16. for a particular Congregation of Beleevers without Officers is a new and strange and false glosse maintained by none but Brownists and such like Separatists To conclude The Church of which our Saviour speaks is called here the Kingdome of Heaven on Earth But a particular Congregation of Beleevers is never called the Kingdome of Heaven being but a member or corporation of that Kingdome It were as improper to call a congregation Christs Kingdome as to call London the Kingdome of England yet so your party speake sometimes This I thought good to note to cleare the way for the better understanding of that which followes And now goe on 2. The next thing to be explicated is what the Keyes of the Kingdome be wherein you resolve us thus The Keyes are the Ordinances of Christ which he hath instituted to be administred in his Church as the preaching of the Word as also the administring of Seales and censures I take what you grant only I shall animadvert some things In this Paragraph as you doe clearely lay downe the state of the question so you doe strongly confute the scope of your whole Booke which is to give the people a share in the power of the Keyes that is in the government of the Church which appeares upon these considerations 1. You say the Keyes are the Ordinances which Christ hath instituted But the Ordinances of Christ are given indeed for the Church of Beleevers that is for their good and benefit objectivè But are never in all the Scripture nor in all Antiquity said to be given to that Church subjectivè It sounds ill at first hearing to say that the people have any power to exercise Ordinances of preaching or administring of Seales or Censures The power of preaching or administring Sacraments by the people as none but Separatists doe usurpe so your selfe complaine of it page 6. And why you should allow them power in censures there is very little reason 2. You say the Keyes are Ordinances which Christ hath instituted to be administred in his Church What Church the Church of Beleevers a particular Congregation for so you meane as was shewed afore Marke it to be administred in that Church scil by Officers instituted for that purpose not by that Church without Officers 3. You adde that which to me clearly excludes the people of your Church These Keyes are neither sword nor scepter c. for they conveigh not soveraign power but stewardly ministeriall Whence thus I argue The people or Congregation of Beleevers have no stewardly or ministeriall power over themselves ergo they have nothing to doe with the power of the Keyes They are not as Hilkiah was whose Office was over the house Isa 22.15 22. nor Stewards in the house as he was Gen 43.19 nor as those are who are spoken of 1 Cor. 4.1 2. Stewards of the mysteries of God But you adde a clause to draw in the people saying This power to open and shut the gates of Heaven lyeth partly in their spirituall calling whether it be their Office or their place and order in the Church c. I suppose the word calling should be taken here of a speciall calling or office as we use to call it which againe would exclude the people from any power in the Keyes as having no office in the Church But you adde by way of explication of your owne sense Whether it be their Office or their place and order in the Church on purpose to steale in the interest of the people in some share of the Keyes But if place order in the Church give the people out of office any power in the Keyes that is the Ordinances so you say again then may women children claim an inâ—erest in those Keyes for they have a place and Order in the Church as well as men which yet you would seeme to deny But let me professe at first what I shall make good from your selfe hereafter I see not but women and children may challenge a great part of that power of the Keyes which you give to the Brethren 3. Concerning the third What are the Acts of the Keyes and the fourth what is the subject to be bound and loosed I shall not contend with you The fifth To whom the power of the Keyes is given requires a more serious consideration as being the very foundation of all your new Fabricke which stands or fals with it The Text is expresse To thee Simon Peter will I give the Keyes c. in a cleare contradistinction to the Church before mentioned upon this rock of thy confession will I build my Church which you take for a particular congregation though by a great mistake as was shewed above But let it be granted for the present to be so then the words in all cleare construction run thus I will build my Church the particular congregation upon that rocke and I will give the Keyes of that Church called the Kingdome of Heaven and so by you interpreted to thee Peter and to such Officers as thou art Otherwise he would have said On this rocke will I build my Church and I will give unto it the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven that is of the Church it selfe which is scarse a reasonable interpretation of the words To make way therefore for your great designe you undertake to resolve that busie question as you call it How Peter is to be considered in receiving this power of the Keyes whether as an Apostle or as an Elder or as a Beleever c. Before I come to consider your answer I would make bold to put one ingredient more into the question whether Peter was not considered as a Deacon as well as an Elder or Beleever For seeing a Deacon is one of the Officers of the New Testament The Keyes p. 32. The way p. 83. some say Iudas was Christs Deacon and your selfe say all the Officers of the Church were virtually in the Apostles They were Pastors Teachers Ruling-Elders Deacons c. It may not unfitly be questioned whether Peter did not then represent a Deacon as well as an Elder or Beleever And then againe whether the Keyes were not given to Peter as a Deacon and why a Deacon only is denyed any power in the Keyes when beleevers are admitted to have a share therin seeing a Deacon hath power to collect and distribute the goods and treasury of the Church I leave these to your consideration or theirs who shall reply and come to your answer To shew your desire of peace and your impartiality in inclining
knowledge for you make them both one is distinguished from the key of Order which Order is either of power or authority and so your key of knowledge is left without power also 2. Your key of power as you call it is it selfe left without all power at least active power being only an obedientiall power to consent and yeeld submission to the will of Christs made knowne by the Elders 2. There wants say you an integrall part of the keyes the key of power or liberty belonging to the Church it selfe But to this I say This is so farre from being an integrall part of the keyes that it is no key at all no proper power at all as hath partly been shewed already A key in all mens judgement that ever writ of the power of the Church carries in the notion of it a power and authority properly called power in government till now of late yea even the Brownists themselves make it a key of Authority and Rule in the people Onely you to make us beleeve you differ from them call it a power improperly called Authority pag. 36. or a liberty or a priviledge which was never before called a key till now For there are many liberties or priviledges belonging to servants in a family or people in a State which no man cals a key of power or a power in the Keyes And the truth is you are not constant to your selfe For sometimes you call it only liberty c. sometimes you give the Church the Brethren without their Officers as full power as the Officers themselves have and as full rule and authority as the Brownists give them as we shall manifest in the sequell But you adde Protestant Churches having recovered the liberty of preaching the Gospell and ministry of the Sacraments have looked no farther some of them nor d scerned the defect of Church power or liberty due unto them in point of discipline To this I say The errour of the Protestant Churches was not that they looked not after the power of discipline for the people but that they laboured not to recover it for their Elders letting the Prelates keep quietly the discipline to themselves But the errour on the other hand was more easie to be fallen into and more dangerous which you observe to have followed That others finding themselves wronged as they did but suppose in the withholding a key of power which belongs to them have wrested to themselves an undue power which belongs not to them the key of Authority True it is some have done so for being allowed by some perhaps your selfe the key of power or liberty in discipline as you call it they have wrested not only the key of knowledge in preaching and administring Sacraments which belongs not to them but also the key of authority as you speake And so will your people too ere long I feare when they are once possessed a while of the key of power wrest the key of authority in all both in preaching and administring Sacraments and pronouncing censures and well they may by your owne grants as we shall heare anon 3. A third defect you observe In dividing the Key of Order from the Key of jurisdiction of purpose to make way for the power of Chancellors c. But 1. That might be the errour of the distributors not of the distribution For the distribution gives both the keyes to the same men For the same men that had the key of knowledge had also the key of order and jurisdiction in the intention of the first sounders of that distribution which after ages divided in practise And yet their Chancellors and Commissaries c. some of them at least were Deacons who were reputed of the Clergy as they speake and might preach if they would and so had both keyes in one person though limited in some particular acts of them But if our late Deacons were as some of our brethren have said they were virtually Presbyters and needed no new Ordination then certainly they had the power of jurisdiction with the power of Order though limited by the corruption of the distributors 2. This defect may chance to fall upon your owne distribution Doe not you divide the key of Order from the key of jurisdiction in your owne Deacons You say expresly in these words The Order of Deacons The Keyes page 6. whereof our Lord spake nothing touching jurisdiction I hope you will not say the Office of a Deacon fals not under the key of Order yet for ought I perceive you make little account of him in your distribution 3. You say Those Chancellors c. were invested with jurisdiction and more than ministeriall authority even above those Elders who labour in Word and Doctrine But doe not you invest the people with as much power and jurisdiction more than ministeriall even above those Elders who labour in the word and doctrine both to open and shut the doores of the Church against them page 9. besides what you say elsewhere 4. I would gladly be resolved whether you doe not divide the key of Order into a key of power or liberty and a key of authority on purpose to make way for the power of the people as they of old did for the power of the Chancellors c. Lastly I pray you seriously to consider whether by this sacrilegious breach of Order investing the people with a key of power even above those Elders that labour in the Word and Doctrine to open and shut the doores against them page 9. which is the breaking as it were of the files and rankes in an Army they are your owne words Satan is not like againe to rout and ruine a great part of the liberty and power of Church officers and the purity of the Churches and of all the Ordinances of Christ in them 4. A fourth defect is That Order is appropriated to the Officers of the Church only We put a difference between Office and Order We shall speake more fully to this hereafter All we say for the present is but this That Office and Order in the strict and Ecclesiasticall sense of the word Order have hitherto been taken for the same And your selfe grant page 7. They may be admitted as aquivalent in a right sense Let us now consider your owne Distribution There is say you a key of Faith and a key of Order and you have a Text of Scripture for it Col. 2.5 6. But by Faith and Order there the Apostle meanes not the keyes of the kingdome of Heaven as they are understood in this controversie but as I take it their Faith manifested in their orderly walking as becomes Christians professing the Gospell So that by Order there is meant their morall orderly walking as in other duties according to the Rule so in their submission to the order of government or exercise of the keyes in the hands of their Officers I beleeve no Interpreter but your selfe and some others of late ever tooke those words in
an Ecclesiasticall sense for the keyes delivered unto Peter But we goe on The key of Faith say you is the sâ—me with the key of knowledge Luke 11.52 which the Lawyers had taken aw y. But 1. by your favour the key of Faith and knowledge are not both one if you understand it of justifying Faith A man may have much knowledge and no Faith Knowledge may in a sense be said to be the key of Faith as being the inlet or Antecedent of Faith but so Faith and knowledge are not the same 2. The key of knowledge is one thing and knowledge is another The key of knowledge is the great Ordinance of preaching you said the keyes of the kingdome of Heaven were the Ordinances of Christ as the preaching of the Word the opening and applying of it p. 2 c. But this key of knowledge here you speake of is you say common to all Beleevers but a little before this you complaine that private Christians had usurped this key to preach the Gospell c. page 6 Whereas this key of knowledge is peculiar to the Ministers of the Gospell The Priests lips keep the key of knowledge c. and Faith comes by the Word preached This was the key of knowledge which the Lawyers had taken away either by not interpreting or misinterpreting the Scripture They could not take away the peoples knowledge much lesse their Faith They might take away the key both of knowledge and Faith that is preaching as the Papists doe by locking up the Word in a strange language and ours lately did by crying and putting downe preaching 2. Whereas you say They that had the key of knowledge had power to enter into the kingdome of Heaven and it may be to open the doore to others to enter also I answer The key s given to Peter Matth. 16. were not to open the Kingdome of Heaven to himselfe for that key if a key it was he had before but to open it to others by opening and applying the Word as you said above our Saviour speaks of binding and loosing others Whose sins ye bind on earth c. and of opening for and shutting out others not himselfe Keyes are given to Stewards not properly to let in or shut out themselves but by way of Office to let in or locke out others Besides A priviledge to find an open doore to enter into the fellowship of the Church p. 11. which is passive and in plaine sense one fit to be admitted into the Church So the Epistolers p. 2. The key of knowledge hath opened their hearts that is I think preaching the key of knowledge and Faith which you describe here is common to all Beleevers even women but I beleeve you will not give them a key to open and shut heaven to others that is the key of preaching Then againe why doe you dislike the former distribution when you also make one key to be the key of knowledge and so leave one of the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven without power contra-distinguishing the key of Faith or knowledge for with you they are both one from the key of power which fals under your key of Order Lastly whereas you say a faithfull soule by this key entreth into a state of grace and into the fellowship of the Church c. You may remember that by the Kingdome of Heaven which is the Church on Earth you understand a particular Congregation But a man may have this key of Faith or knowledge and never enter into your particular Church and so this key is given to a man out of the Church and yet you say the keyes are given to the Church I leave you to consider it These things hang not well together In the next place you come to the key of Order of which you thus write The key of Order is the power whereby every member of the Church walketh orderly himselfe according to his place in the Church and helpeth his brethren to walke orderly also But this is a strange expression of the key of Order never heard of before too generally and aequivocally spoken For Order may be taken either morally or Ecclesiastically Passively or Actively Morally so it is taken passively for a conformity in carriage to the rules of the word in Doctrine as well as discipline But Ecclesiastically it is an Active power acting upon others The very name of a key imports a power intrusted for others good and not their owne properly Every one is to keep Order but every one hath not the key of Order Order and Office in this Ecclesiasticall sense are both one None hath the key of Order but one in Office But your key of Order is common to every member of the Church The Keyes p ge 21. And that it is no more than morall or passive Order your selfe doe seeme to grant when you say The brethren stand in an Order even in an orderly subjection according to the order of the Gospell Every servant in a Family and every man woman and childe in a corporation stand in such an order and must walke orderly themselves and help others to walke orderly also but will any man say therefore these have interest in the keyes of the Family or Corporation If every member of a Congregation have this key of Order how and why are women and children excepted or are they no members of the Church or may they walke disorderly The instance of Saint Pauls walking orderly according to the orders of the Iewish Church manifests the morall sense of the word For certainly the Fraternity of the Iewes had no power of the Keyes The meaning was that Saint Paul by his conformity to some Iewish Ceremonies should manifest that he did not absolutely oppose the Rites of the Iewish Church not that he had any power of the Keyes of the government of that Church Surely the Iewes were bound all of them to withdraw from every brother that walked disorderly yet did not beleeve that that was any part of the exercise of the key of Order No more was it in those of Thessalonica when they did warne the unruly or withdraw from him that walked disorderly And this Key of Order if a Key it were was common not only to Elders and Brethren as you say but even to women and children as I said afore Of Order you say there be 2. Keyes one of power or interest another of Authority or Rule The first of these is called in Scripture Liberty c. Before I examine the particulars I shall note some few things 1. How modest errour is at first Here it is first called power mollified by interest and then by liberty after by priviledge all which are rather passive than active but afterwards it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power which though it sometimes signifies a priviledge honour or dignity Iohn 1.12 in a passive construction as given and received yet when it relates to Government or a power of the Keyes
the Keyes from the Scripture nor yet from antiquity though you would faine have us beleeve you would not sticke upon the former distribution if the words be rightly explained As how 1. Let them say you allow some spirituall power to the Key of knowledge though not a church power But have you not all this while been speaking of the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven that is the Church and now is the power of the Key of knowledge no Church power Againe have not you your selfe taken away from the Key of knowledge not only Church power but all power whatever by contradistinguishing it to the Key of power 3. Is that Key whereby he that hath it not onâ—y enters himselfe into the Kingdome of Heaven but also opens the doore for others to enter no Church power You adde secondly Let them put in a Key of liberty as well as of authority into Church power But both these are but one Key or nothing as we have said Nothing indeed to purpose if both these must consent or nothing is done as you and the Brethren assert 3. Let them not say you divide from the Key of Order or Office the Key of jurisdiction for Christ hath given no jurisdiction but to whom he hath given Office But 1. Christ it seemes hath divided the Key of Office from the Key of jurisdiction for hee hath given no jurisdiction to Deacons 2. You should have said and your scope required it Christ hath given to none the Key of Order or Office but to whom he hath given the Key of jurisdiction but that had contradicted your selfe in the instance of Deacons Concerning whom say you our Lord spake nothing of jurisdiction page 6. Now is it not as strange that there should be an Office in the Church without some jurisdiction As that there should among the Prelates bee jurisdiction without an Office at least instituted by Christ as it was in Chancellors Commissaries c. Nay is it not as strange that there should be Authority that is jurisdiction to binde and loose in those that have no Office at all as there is in the people in your way as that there should be an Office without jurisdiction And now I leave you to consider whether of these Distributions is most consentaneous to the truth CHAP. III. Of the Subject of the Key of Knowledge and Order YOu first tell us in generall That as the Keyes be divers so are the Subjects to whom they are committed divers But this is very doubtfull and disputable because at first all the Keyes were given to Peter at once and therefore one subject may possesse them all And sure they all meet in Pastors every one of them hath all the Keyes of knowledge and of power of Order and jurisdiction according to the old distribution and perhaps in yours also As the Apostles had all the Keyes by your confession They might exhort as Pastors The Keyes p. 32. teach as Teachers rule as Rulers receive and distribute the oblations of the Church as Deacons So I see no reason but every Minister of the Gospell hath virtually in him all the same power and Offices And if they be since divided into more hands for case and Order yet the subject is primarily but one and for the diversity of subjects of the Keyes it concernes them who plead it to make it good by Scripture Vpon this reason there are some who as they question the Office of a ruling Elder having 1. no direct or expresse instituted for it in the Scripture 2. No instance of any such that ruled and were not also Pastors 3. Nor doe you say That Peter received the Keyes as a ruling-Elder but as a Pastor so they would not yeeld the Office of the Deacon but that they finde expresse instituted of it afterwards by the Apostles But I will not multiply controversies but come to your particulars 1 The Key of knowledge or which is all one the Key of faith belongeth to all the faithfull whether joyned to any particular Church or no. But 1. Then one of the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven belongs to women yea to Infidels When God gives them Faith he gives them a Key to receive Christ and to find an open doore to enter into the fellowship of the Church But sure the Apostle Peter did not represent Infidels when the Keyes were committed to him 2. The Keyes you said were given to the Church but now you say they are given to some before they enter into the Church But I pray Sir is not he entred into the Church who hath received Christ and makes profession of his faith Yes you may say into the mysticall Church but not into a particular church-fellowship I answer he is entred also into the generall visible Church by profession of his faith to which Church we thinke the Keyes were first given and after to the particular Church But you have so long dreamed of a particular Church to be the first and only instituted Church that you seeme to forget the visible generall Church The way p. 10 and indeed to call it a Chimara This we thinke you learned from your Cousins if not your Brethren the Brownists Heretofore in Scripture language so soone as men beleeved and professed their faith they were said to be added to the Church not to a particular Congregation for so some were never added for ought we know as the Eunuch and some others but to the generall visible Church And I pray what Key was it that opened the doore to enter them into the Church Was it the key of their owne particular knowledge or Faith or the key of preaching viz. the key of knowledge in the Ministers of the Gospell and not in themselves You say here which is the truth that they find an open doore to enter into the fellowship of the Church which is passively to be capable to be admitted into the Church and not actively to open the doore to themselves 2. The Key of Order belongeth to all such as are in Church order whether Elders or Brethren But this is doubtfully spoken in a double respect 1. What you meane by Order as afore If Order and Office be all one as you seemed to yeeld then the key of Order belongs not to the Brethren at all but to the Elders who are in office If Order be taken for orderly carriage or as you your selfe speak in this very Paragraph For orderly subjection according to the order of the Gospell it is just nothing to the power of the Keyes For keyes imply an active power orderly subjection is morally passive 2. It is also doubtfull what is meant by Church in this place If it be taken for the generall visible Church that hath nothing to doe with the power of the keyes which are committed say you to the particular Church If for the particular Congregation it is then doubtfull still For it may be asked what power have the Brethren in
relates which if it be not a fine delusion let the world judge We deny not but gifted Brethren of such abilities as are fit for Office for learning and judgement c. may for approbation exercise their gifts But we only note the difference of these Masters and that these of ours are nearer to Brownisme who by their constant preaching as gifted Brethren countenance and encourage private members supposing themselves gifted sufficiently to preach ordinarily yea and to administer the Seales which as it is lesse * Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the Gospell than preaching so also is annexed unto preaching Mat. 28. as your selfe here speakes and complaine of this practise page 6. 2. A second Act of Authority common to the Elders is They have power to call the Church together 1. You said before Rule was an Act proper to the Office of Elders Now you say it is common you meane perhaps common to both sorts of Elders But then you should have explained the difference or resolved us whether the Ruling-Elders have equall power with the preaching Elders in this Act. For your instance of the Apostles calling the Church together Acts 6.2 is but for one sort of Elders and you bring nothing for the other 2. Besides to call the Church together seemes rather a matter of Order than of Authority For one Elder of either sort may be deputed to this worke But if this be proper to Elders what if the Elders be all offenders who shall call the Church together then Truly this power seemes first to be in the Church in your way who as they had power to gather themselves into one Body without Officers so much more to call an Assembly of themselves That of Ioel 2. for the Priests is weakly alleadged For it appeares not that they were called on to call an Assembly but only to weep v. 17. it was rather the Magistrates Act to proclaime a Fast 3. To examine all members or Officers before they be received of the Church But this according to your principles is spoken to the whole Church and so no proper Act of Elders And expressely above you made this one part of the priviledge or liberty of the people to propound just exceptions against such as offer themselves and if so then also to examine them page 13. 4. A fourth Act of their Rule is Ordination of Officers But 1. This is too confused What Elders doe you meane Preaching or Ruling Have the Ruling-Elders power of Ordination of Pastors and Teachers This as it is without all president of Scripture so it is against a Rule The greater is blessed of the lesser which cannot be by the Apostles Divinity 2. This is no Act proper to the Elders but common to the Brethren by your owne judgement if your minde be not altered since you writ The Way p. 50 51. See it 5. To open the doores of speech and silence in the Assembly But 1. one Elder doth this ergo one Elder hath power and authority not over the Church only but over his fellow Elders also 2. You take it from them presently in some cases When the Elders themselves lye under offence the Brethren have liberty to require satisfaction c. That is the Brethren may open the doore and begin to speake And still you are confused not declaring whether this power belongs to either sort of Elders or both alike especially your instance of the Rulers of the Synagogue seeming to carry it to the Ruling Elders 6. To prepare matters before hand for the Church and to reject causelesse and disorderly complaints c. But doe not you hold Mat. 18.17 to speake of the Church of the Brethren with the Elders then that place is impertinently alleadged to prove an Act proper to the Elders 2. Have the Elders power to judge a complaint to be causelesse and to reject it without the cognizance of the people why then have they not power to judge a complaint to be just and to censure it without their cognizance also Doe you not intrench a little too much upon your peoples Liberty 7. The Elders have authority in handling an offence before the Church both jus dicere and sententiam ferre But all this I thinke the Brownists yeeld who yet give the chiefe if not the only power to the people and give the Elders leave sententiam ferre to pronounce the sentence as their mouth and Deputies And you say They are first to informe the Church what the Law of Christ is which is jus dicere and then when the Church discerneth the same and condiscendeth to it by consent to give sentence But what if the people discerne it not or condiscend not that the sentence shall passe Then they may have power jus dicere which every understanding brother hath but not sententiam ferre A goodly Authority 8. They have power to dismisse the Church with a Blessing To this I say little only I say it is too confused what Elders you meane preaching or Ruling and then I say this is but a matter of Order one only does it and yet I thinke you will not say he hath Authority over his fellowes 9. The Elders have power to charge any of the people in private that they live not inordinately c. 2 Thes 3.6 c. This is very weakly alleadged by a man of your strength The Apostle speaks this to all the Brethren the Thessalonians yea it may concerne women sometimes to warne the unruly especially being to be done in private and doe you bring this for the power of your Elders which sort of Elders doth it concerne to doe this for neither are mentioned Againe the Apostle speaks not of charging or warning at all but peremptorily bids them withdraw v. 6. and to note him by a Letter and have no company with him v. 14. 10. If the Church fall away to blasphemy against Christ c. and no Synod hoped for or no help by it The Elders have power to withdraw the Disciples from them and to carry away the Ordinances with them c. But 1. the case is mislaid for Acts 19.9 the Jewes that there blasphemed were not of the Church but only such as came to heare Paul preach which an Infidell might doe but then this was no proper withdrawing as a power of the Keyes For what had Paul to doe or the Elders with them that are without 2. Suppose the whole Church fall away what shall the Elders doe now They may not excommunicate them you said above and if they may withdraw that 's no more power than the Brethren have of the Elders Apostate 3. How can the Elders carry away the Ordinances from them For first the Elders cease to be Elders when the flocke is separated and ceases to be their flocke Secondly the Brethren may keep the Ordinances with them and have power in your way to chuse new Officers to exercise the Ordinances and then what care they for their withdrawing
the times What is the compleat subject of Church power or the power of the Keyes These Brethren say perhaps truly that the Truth herein hath been long lost in a double extreme The one was the tyranny of the Clergy so called or rather of the Prelacy who ingrossed all or the chiefe part of that power unto themselves not only from the people but also from the Pastors of particular Congregations The other is the Anarchy or popularity of the Separatists or Brownists as they after call them who gave the people a place and claime to the whole power and made the Elders set over them but their servants to exercise that power which was properly theirs Probable it is that Truth may lye in the middle between these two extremes but how to find it out is not so easie Our Brethren goe about it but me thinks they doe not hit it They say The Saints in these knowing Times finding that the Key of knowledge hath so far opened their hearts that they see with their owne eyes into the substantials of godlinesse c. They doe begin more than to suspect that some share in the Key of power should likewise appertaine unto them Truly just one as much as another The Brethren suppose the Saints have a share in the Key of Knowledge when they say they suspect they have likewise a share in the Key of power But first they have no share in the Key of knowledge which is preaching and administration of the Seales as the Authour speaks except passively as to have their hearts opened by it as the Brethrens words are So nor have they any share in the Key of power except it be by a voluntary consent in obedience to the Will and Rule of Christ as the Authour himselfe speaks page 15. And divers times elsewhere as we shall heare even an orderly subjection according to the Order of the Gospell page 11. Though the truth is some have taken more upon them than to suspect they have a share even to practise the Key of power and that through the instruction and guidance of their Teachers which how little it comes short of the plea and practise of the other extreme shall ere long appeare For the present These Brethren say they conceive the disposall of this power may lye in a due allotment into divers hands according to their severall concernments rather than in an entire and sole trust committed to any one man or any one sort or ranke of men or Officers Herein perhaps we might agree with them But I am sure they agree not with their Authour herein who places all the power in one sort of men alone that is The way p. 45. the Brethren without Officers and gives them leave to elect ordaine Officers admit members and passe Church censures without any Officers yea to censure all their Officers though we thinke he contradicts himselfe in this Tract of the Keyes The Brethren tell us The Authour to whom they Preface takes upon him to distribute the bounds of this power And layes downe this as a maxime That looke in whose hands soever it fall they have it immediately from Christ that is in regard of delegation or dependance on each other And thus farre we doe not dissent He then say they considers the power of a Congregation which supposing to have a Presbytery of its owne he asserteth to be the prime subject of entire power within it selfe yea and the sole native subject of the power of Ordination and Excommunication But 1. he needed not to have made such a supposition that the Congregation hath a Presbytery of its owne The way p. 50 51. For if they have no Presbytery of their owne he asserteth that they have the power of Ordination and Excommunication which is the highest censure within themselves and want a Warrant to repaire to the Presbytery of another Church for either 2. Both he and these Brethren know that this is denyed by many who make the first Subject of all Church-power to be the generall visible Church and secondarily the Congregation though having a Presbytery of its owne As a man is the first subject of Risibility Peter but at second hand The Congregation consisting of Elders and Brethren For as for women and children there is a speciall exception by a Statute Law of Christ against their enjoyment of any part of this publicke power say the Brethren which I see no reason for in regard of some part of this power as we shall see anon the Authour labours to share the interest and power between the Elders and the Brethren And he manifests it say they by way of a parallell As in some of our Townes corporate the power is given to a company of Aldermen the Rulers and a Common Councell a Body of the people But I pray observe the dissimilitude in this similitude His maine designe is to give the people a share in the Church power of Government But then the parallell will not run even For the Company of Aldermen and the Common-Councell are both Rulers of the Corporation though in severall ranks and subordination But I suppose neither the Authour nor the Brethren can truly say the whole company of the people are Rulers in the Church as the Common-Councell is in the Corporation If all the people be Rulers who are the ruled In the City there are multitudes of people subject to the Company of Aldermen and Common-Councell but here are all Governours or governed The parallell were fairely laid thus The Company of Aldermen resemble the Pastors and Teachers The Common-Councell the Ruling-Elders Officers of another ranke The Citizens besides those the Brethren out of Office in the Congregation Thus all things correspond well But they make the Presbytery to be the Aldermen and the whole Body of the people to be the Common-Councell which sure they are not what ever they say for then the distinction of Rulers and ruled is lost And this appeares clearly in his application of this similitude He gives to the Elders or Presbytery a binding power of Rule and Authority unto the Brethren a power to concurre with them and that such affaires should not be transacted without a joynt-agreement of both What power such as the Common-Councell hath in the Corporation that 's more than a bare priviledge that 's a power of Rule and Authority a binding power concurring with the Aldermen But they should have said Not the Common-Councell but the Common people of a City have such a power to concurre with the Aldermen that such affaires be not transacted but with their joynt-agreement But this they cannot say and then the parallell will not hold unlesse they change the Common-people for the Common-Councell thus As the people of a City only cannot proceed to any publicke sentence unlesse they have Aldermen over them so nor have the Aldermen power to sentence without the concurrence of the people which is apparently false The parallell must be thus
As the Brethren only cannot proceed to any publick censure without their Elders so nor have the Elders power to censure without the concurrence of the Brethren which is as false as the former Indeed these are very parallell As on the one side the Common-Councell cannot doe any valid act without the Aldermen nor the Aldermen without the Common-Councell unlesse there be some reserved cases so as the Ruling-Elders cannot censure without the Pastor so nor the Pastor without the Ruling-Elders but applyed to the Brethren is as in the City if so it were to make the Government popular as those doe that are in the one extreme or I understand nothing And then the last clause of the Brethren is to be paralleld thus As the Common-Councell have not power of censuring the whole Court of Aldermen nor the Aldermen the whole Common-Councell though together they have power over any particular person or persons of each so the Presbytery alone have not power of excommunicating the whole Body of the Brethren nor the Brethren the Presbytery though together they have power over any person in each But then ther 's one thing wanting The Aldermen and Common-Councell have power over all the people of the City as well as over particular persons amongst themselves But in these Brethrens way There are no other people over which the Presbytery and Brethren should have power and so the Scene is mislaid I only note againe That the Brethren and the Authour are not both of one mind They say The Brethren only could not proceed to any publick censures without they have Elders over them nor retrò But whether he say The Elders have power to censure the Body of the Brethren or no we shall heare anon this I am sure he sayes The way p. 45 The Brethren have power to censure the whole Presbytery as was noted afore The next thing which they comment on is the power of Synods because Congregations may miscarry Wherein say they he grants an Association of Churches as an Ordinance of Christ with power above that of a Congregation a Ministeriall power to determine and enjoyne things concerning the Congregations The words are full and faire but the sense is flat and empty For all this power of determining and enjoyning is but Doctrinall or declarative Every Minister hath in himselfe alone a Ministeriall Doctrinall Authority over the whole Church that is his charge and every person in it Ep. p. 9. differing nothing in kind from the power of every single Pastor but in degree of weight as a greater Testimony as three cords twisted together are stronger than each of them single A power not binding or loosing but doctrinally only not armed with power of censures if injunctions be not obeyed But if this power of the Synod be not juridicall what is it All power in those Pastors thus assembled as an Ordinance of Christ is either a power of Order or of jurisdiction The power of determining or decrecing together is not the power of Order for then every Pastor quâ Pastor by vertue of his Order might decree and impose it upon the Congregation which is denyed by all Therefore it must be a power of jurisdiction which yet these Brethren and their Authour doe deny And if it be not armed with power of censure it will come to nothing as shall appeare hereafter For as for their withdrawing communion it will be little regarded by an offending obstinate Congregation The Brethren Epistolers now begin to applaud themselves as jumping in judgement with their Authour though so farre remote as New-England But men agree in errour sometimes that never knew one another Their middle way is this very way held forth by this Authour Yet they say afterwards in some things in his Discourse Hic Magister non tenetur They say It is the middle way between that which is called Brownisme and the Presbyteriall Government as it is practised c. But if they remember themselves well the two extremes were Prelacy and Brownisme Whereof the one doth in effect put the chiefe if not the whole of the Rule and Government into the hands of the people c. The other taking the principall parts of that Rule the due of each Congregation into the jurisdiction of a common Presbytery of severall Congregâ—tions c. I appeale their wisedome if the latter part doe not better fall upon the Prelacy who in the other extreme tooke the principall parts of Rule due in part to the Pastors of Congregations into their owne hands Then the middle way may chance fall out to be the Presbyteriall way and not theirs For certainly that is between those two extremes And their way I dare say and hope to make it appeare comes nearer to Brownisme than the Presbyteriall way to the Prelaticall For the present only marke That the Presbyteriall way gives the power of Church Government neither to the Clergy alone as the Prelacy nor to the people alone or chiefly as the Brownists doe but to both For the Presbyteries Classicall as well as Congregationall consist of Pastors and Ruling Elders who are the Representatives of the people and chosen by their consent But to give the Brethren the people alone without Officers a power to elect ordaine censure c. as the Authour doth whatever these Brethren doe is to put not only the chiefe as Brownists doe but the whole of the Rule into their hands which for ought I know the Brownists doe not Nor doth the Presbytery swallow up the peoples interests as they affirme for their interest is saved in their Ruling-Elders chosen by themselves as the interest of the common people of a Corporation is saved in their Common-Councell chosen by themselves And that the votes of the Elders of that Congregation concerned should be swallowed up in the Classis c. is no more absurd than that the votes of the Burgesse of a Corporation should be swallowed up in the Parliament or that the votes of the Elders should be swallowed up in a Synod confessed to be the Ordinance of Christ unlesse the Brethren thinke a Synod may not determine or decree any thing without the joynt-consent of every Elder there assembled After all this agreement of the Brethren with this absent Authour to a wonder if not to a miracle as they would have us thinke though we beleeve they were not strangers to the plot of this Authour either before or since his going over they enter their dissent against some opinions and passages of this Authour in the platforme by him described I purpose not here to debate much lesse to decide the controversie between them I only desire to have it observed That it may rather seeme a wonder that these and other Brethren having so long studied and professed this middle way should not yet be able to walke hand in hand therein When will they be agreed that we may see their new platforme to be uniforme One of them must needs be
to every Church-act it s an easie thing for them to bring in Anarchy being alwaies the greater number and so to swallow up the votes of the Elders as Brownists doe That Ministeriall Doctrinall Authority should be severed from the power of excommunication in some parties we never doubted because excommunication is an act of jurisdiction which is common to many but Doctrinall Authority is an affluxe of Order But to sever Rule and Authority from the power of concurrence to excommunication and censures as they doe in the people is a meer nullity of Rule and Authority too That the power of excommunication should be inseparably linked to a Congregation they would faine illustrate by a knowne comparison As the custome is in our Land The sentencing of a man to death is not by Lawyers nor by Iudges alone but by his Peeres a Iury of men like himselfe Their similitude still halts on the maine legge For who are the Iudges with them but the Presbytery and who are the Iury but all the Brethren But this is not so in a Corporation All the City are not the Delinquents Peeres but a select dozen of men Now suppose a man be accused as an offender in a Corporation shall the whole City be his Peeres or Iury to try him have they any such interest or priviledge is their consent or dissent regarded So the parallell required If a brother deserve censure he shall not be judged by the Pastors alone or with the Elders chosen by the people as his Iury for the Government of the Congregation but all the people are to be his Peeres or Iury This were strange to see in a City and would breed nothing but Anarchy and confusion So in the Church That Christ hath not betrusted a generall Assembly of Elders with that power he hath done the Congregation is begged not proved The reason is invalid Because say they they are abstracted from the people But that 's not true for the people are there representatively in their Elders who are able to represent the case of the offender with all the circumstances as fully as if all the people were there present But Christ say they would have this Tribe of men the brethren personally concurring not by delegation alone not to the execution only but even to the legall sentence also of cutting men off This is all begged and is the question And it is as if they should say in the parallell instance God would have all the Corporation personally concurring to the legall sentence or cutting off a malefactor not by delegation only as the Iury doe nor to the execution only which were a strange confusion So that as at the Assizes the multitude of the people present have no concurrence to the legall sentence c. but the Iudge and Iury only so the Brethren are to have no concurrence to the legall sentence of excommunication except to yeeld obedience in the execution but the Elders only and so the parallell is full And to conclude if the distance of the Presbyteries Clasficall c. may necessitate the censure to pertaine to the particular Congregation because of the circumstances better knowne to them By the same reason every Towne where a malefactor lives should have the Sessions kept amongst them because there the person and fact is better knowne and not one man to be absent from the censure Nay a man being to be excommunicated out of a particular Church is excommunicated out of all Churches therefore all the Churches must be present at the censure VINDICIAE Clavium OR A Vindication of the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven CHAP. I. What the Keyes be and what their power 1. THat by the Kingdome of Heaven is meant both the Kingdome of Glory which is above and the Kingdome of Grace which is the Church on Earth I easily grant But I only desire in the beginning of this discourse to be informed what you meane by the Church Whether 1. The invisible and mysticall Church of true Beleevers opposed to Reprobates or 2. The Catholicke visible Church opposed to Heathens or 3. The particular Congregation of Beleevers associated in Church-communion as you use to speake If we may guesse at your meaning by the whole proceeding of this Tract or by your discovery of your selfe in the other Discourse called The way of the Churches in New-England which though it was published after this of the Keyes yet was written and went up and downe in the darke before it I thinke you meane it in the latter sense for a particular Congregation For your first Proposition there gives us this Resolution That the Church which Christ in the Gospell hath instituted The way p. 1. and to which he hath committed the Keyes c. it coetus fidelium a combination of godly men commonly called a particular visible Church But of all the rest this is the most improbable sense of our Saviours words Mat. 16.19 For 1. By the Kingdome of Heaven on Earth he meanes that Church of which he had spoken before in v. 18. But that was either the Catholicke visible Church or rather the invisible mysticall Church for that only is built upon the rocke and against that the gates of hell shall never prevaile whereas particular Churches may faile 2. The kingdome of Glory the one part of the meaning of the Kingdome of Heaven is not contradistinguished to a particular Congregation but to the generall visible Church on Earth opposed to the World by your selfe The Keyes p. 2. On Earth that is say you in the Church on Earth for he gave him no power to bind in the World 3. That Church was there meant say you the way p. 1. whereof Peter was one But Peter was not a member of such a particular congregation for there was none such extant when Christ spake these words to Peter 4. You say againe it was that Church unto which Peter or any offended brother might tell the offence and have it censured But that was never done in a Church of Saints Beleevers without officers neither was the church of Corinth such a church as you described before for that had Officers who authoritatively might censure the incestuous person yet you joyne them both together 5. It was say you a Church who all met in one place for the administration of the Ordinances of Christ But the Ordinances of Christ are not to be found much lesse administred in a Church of Beleevers without Officers 6. When you say Christ committed the Keyes to the Church that is a particular Congregation you must meane it either Subjectivè or Objectivè If you meane it in the latter sense That the Keyes are committed to the Church as the object of the exercise of the Keyes that is for the use and good of the Church you say true but nothing to the purpose In this sense the Keyes are given first and more immediately to the invisible mysticall Church All are yours whether Paul c. then
civilly it then is taken actively and signifies Authority Romanes 13.1 But page 36. it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly though you say otherwise signifies Authority Authority after a sort may be acknowledged in the people And the acts there and elsewhere given to the people some of them at least as joyning in Censures and in determination of Synodall acts c. called a great stroke or power in ordering Church affaires amounts almost to as full authority as the Elders have any 2. Another thing I note is that this power interest priviledge of the people c. was never called a Key till some new Lock smiths made this new pick-locke of the power of Church-Officers For what is all that is given them if no more than is their due to the government of the Church In a Family in a Corporation I say it againe the servants and Citizens have some priviledges and interests who yet have no stroke in ordering of the Keyes either of Family or City 3. I desire to know under which of the parts of this distribution doth the Deacon fall There be 2. Keyes of Order of power or interest of Authority or Rule Now a Deacon qua Deacon fals under neither of these Not the first for so he is considered only as a Beleever Not the second for so he is denyed jurisdiction as we heard afore If you say he fals under the Key of Order as an Officer yet then you divide the Key of Order from the Key of jurisdiction which you blamed in the other distribution and levell the Deacon an Officer with people no Officers We should now come to the particulars of the power or interest of the Brethren They have a liberty say you in many things but they are more fully laid downe in Chapter 4. there we shall consider them Only now we shall consider the proofe of this power of the people out of the Scripture Your Text is Gal. 5.13 Brethren you have been called unto Liberty c. This Text under favour is miserably mistaken and that not in mine only but in the judgement of all Interpreters which you knowing had rather appeale to the Context than to the Commentators I shall follow you at your owne weapon Your strength lyes in the word Liberty They have a power and liberty to wit to joyne with the sounder part of the Presbytery in casting them out c. But I shall appeale the Apostle himselfe to be Iudge between us In the first verse of this Chapter he uses the same word Stand fast in the Liberty c. where it is without all controversie understood of their liberty or freedome from the Ceremoniall Law called there the yoke of bondâ—ge which some false teachers would impose upon their necks Now that the Apostle speaking still of the same matter should use the same word in so different a sense is no wayes probable Nay secondly in the 11. verse the Apostle sayes If I yet preach circumcision why doe I yet suffer persecution c. And then ver 13. comes in againe with this Brethren you are called unto Liberty c. viz. from that Law of Circumcision and the like not to the liberty by you pretended To chuse Officers or to joyne in Censures c. though these were granted to them yet not in this place And your glosse is very far fetcht and improbable I would they were cut off that trouble you where say you he declares what censure he wishes against those that troubled them viz. cut off to wit by excommunication Obj. But what power have we to cut them off The Apostle answers They have a power and liberty to wit to joyne with the sounder part of the Presbytery in casting them out For saith he you are called unto Liberty There is not one word of this glosse in the Text. And if there were any such power the people have full power given themselves to cut them off for here is not one word of joyning with a Presbytery See againe v. 16. where the Apostle resumes his exhortation ver 13. Vse not your liberty as an occasion unto the flesh saying I say then walke in the spirit and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh Which makes it evident that the Apostle chiefly exhorts ad bonos more 's though he touch other things by the bye but discipline is least of all intended And lest they should use their liberty from those legall and ceremoniall yokes to contention or licentiousnesse he cautions against it v. 13 16. Carnall contention is indeed as you say an usuall disease of popular liberty which I feare you and your partners too much foment by giving the people this power and liberty which you so much talke of and by gingling these Keyes in the eares of the people have almost made them wilde not only one against another but against their Elders or Governours also And no marvell when you grant them so much power As to open a doore of entrance to the Ministers Calling so to shut the doore of entrance against them in some cases page 9. much more than which the Brownists doe not grant then And so much of the pick-locke of Order The Key of Authority is a morall power in a superiour order or state binding or releasing an inferiour in point of subjection To this I say 1. To call Authority a morall power is very improper For every single Pastor yea perhaps brother hath a morall power to bind and release not only an inferiour but a superiour also in point of subjection by propounding the commands of God You might rather have called it a juridicall or Ecclesiasticall power and that without any danger seeing you reserve this power to the Officers or superiours in Order But 2. you speake too confusedly For the people have a power to joyne with the Officers in the censures that is in binding and releasing as you say page 14. The whole Church may be said to binde and loose Nay to open and shut the doores against their Ministers who are their superiors and so Authority is a morall power in inferiours also And page 12. you say the people have a power To prevent the tyranny and Oligarchy and exorbitance of the Elders Surely this must be by a negative voice and that 's more than liberty even full authority and being by inferiours is flatly against your owne definition Furthermore as you say the Brethren with the Elders have power to open and shut c. So you say the Elders with the Brethren doe bind and release page 10. So it seemes as the Brethren can doe nothing without the Elders so the Elders can doe nothing without the Brethren as the Epistolers say expressely page 4. And who would not now conclude that the liberty is equall in both or rather the authority is the same in both and what say the Brownists more And now I thinke you cannot truly say you have received this distribution of
Church Order in the keyes of Order more than one not yet in Church Order Your selfe speake confusedly here in my judgement when you say Every faithfull soule that hath received a key of knowledge you should rather say knowledge by the key of preaching is bound to watch over his Neighbours soule as his owne c. non ratione ordinis sed in tuitu charitatis Not by vertue of a state or order which he is in till in Church-fellowship but as of common Christian love and charity one in Church-Order is bound to doe it in both respects c. But 1. A Christian of no particular Church as yet is in a church-Church-Order with respect to the generall visible Church or else what differs he from an Infidell and so is bound to watch over his Neighbour not only by vertue of common charity but of that christian-Christian-Order wherein he stands 2. Nay an Infidell is bound in tuitu charitatis by vertue of common naturall love and charity to watch over and admonish his brother and is a Christian not yet in Church-Order as you call it bound no more than he to watch over his brother If he be as he is by a nearer relation unto the mysticall body and visible Church of Christ then he is to doe it by vertue of his Order or state of Christianity If he be not what differs he from an Infidell It was a morall Law Lev. 19.18 Thou shalt not hate thy brother but rebuke him c. Which Cain despised when he said Am I my brothers keeper Surely it is want of naturall charity not to watch over a brother that is not in Church-Order as you meane it And it is not becomming a Christian to say A Christian in Church-Order is not to watch over a brother not in Church-Order ratione ordinis but only in tuitu charitatis He is bound to doe so for an Infidell and is he bound no more to a Christian Suppose one in your Church-Order see a Christian not in Church-Order walke unorderly is he not bound to admonish him by that royall Law of Church-Order Mat. 18.1 And if he will not heare him to take two or three more and if he will not heare them to tell it to the Church and afterwards to walke towards him as God directs the Church to order it Hath Christ ordained no better remedy to reclaime a Christian not in church-Church-Order than to reclaime an Infidell But further An Officer or one in a superiour Order by reason of his office is bound to watch over his brothers soule not only in tuitu charitatis but also ratione ordinis Is a brother bound as much as he or he no more then a brother out of office Againe a Deacon is in a superiour Order by reason of his office as you speake here of Elders in what different respect is he bound to watch over his brother no otherwise then a brother out of office Truly then it is all one in your way to be in an office and out of office And this is the way to banish if not Christian yet naturall charity out of the Church And it is observable that since this new Church-fellowship and Church covenant hath been set up charity is growne very cold and some of them have been heard to professe they had nothing to doe with an offendor not of their owne particular Church-communion And doe indeed account all not of their way little better than Infidels or as they speake without and in a manner say with Cain Am I my brothers keeper Never was there so little charity so much scorne and contempt of all not in their owne way as is found in them that professe themselves the only people that have found the way of Christ though in severall Sections CHAP. IV. Of the Subject of Church-Liberty THis Key is given to the Brethen of the Church for so faith the Apostle Gal. 5.23 Brethren you are called unto liberty Concerning the vindication of that Text enough hath been said above Before you come to the particulars of their liberties you Rhetoricate a little to make it more passable As in the common-wealth the welfare of it stands in the due ballancing of the liberties or priviledges of the people and the authority of the Magistrate so in the Church the safety of it is in the right ordering of the priviledges of the Brethren and the ministeriall authority of the Elders All this is granted But the right ballancing of either lyes not in the multitude of the people as having any immediate influence into the government of Church or State For then the government of both were Democraticall But as in our State the ballancing of the priviledges of the people and the authority of the Magistrate supreme lyes in the authority of the Parliament where there are Knights and Burgesses representing the people so I thinke it is in the Church the ballancing of the Brethrens priviledges and the Ministers authority seemes to lye in the Ruling-Elders who are the representatives of the people But take away this ballast or poise of the government and it will be either absolutely Monarchicall and so easily Tyrannicall or else Democraticall and so lyable to Anarchy and confusion as experience shewes us in the Papall and Episcopall tyranny and the Separatists Anarchy the two extremes before observed But let us take a view of the particulars Their Liberties are 1. To chuse their owne Officers so Acts 1. and 6. and 14. In generall I answer thus The election of the people was no more but a designation or propounding the persons and presenting them to the Apostles not by way of vote or suffrage but by way of desire if they were found fit to have one or some of them ordained But this is little or nothing to the power of the Keyes That place Acts 1. was an extraordinary case wherein the people had little or no hand For 1. they were confined to some sort of men hat had conversed with our Saviour 2. They propounded two it was not in their power so much as to nominate the particular man 3. The Lord himselfe determined it and not the Apostles much lesse the people As for that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stood upon it cannot be properly taken as if they by their votes or suffrages had constituted or ordained Mathias to be an Apostle but barely thus Seeing God had chosen and ordained him they accepted him by an orderly subjection to the revealed will of Christ For the second Acts 6. It was expedient that the people should at least have the nomination of their Deacons because better knowne to them and so better to be trusted with their owne stocke But they did but nominate or present the men they did not ordaine so much as a Deacon Looke you out seven men whom we marke it may appoint or ordaine to this businesse It is never found in all the New Testament that ever the people ordained or imposed hands upon any Officer
are still but where they were What if the Presbytery or Church will not submit to their determination or Declaration for it is no more what remedy hath the Church against their erring hereticall scandalous Presbytery If the Synod have a power of censure then againe you destroy your Independency No The Church may withdraw from them So they might before they consulted the Synod nay they were bound to doe it in your way without consulting the Synod But you may call to mind your former thoughts In your other Tract you give them full power to censure their Officers without any Officers as hath more then once been said above And thus your second answer is also answered already You say Excommunication is one of the highest acts of Rule The way p. 101. and ergo cannot be performed but by some Rulers Yet you contradict this fâ—â—â—ly in your other Tract when you say In case of offence given by an Elder or by the whole Eldership together the Church hath Authority marke that Authority which in this Booke you oft deny to require satisfaction of them and if they doe not give due satisfaction to proceed to censure according to the quality of the offence And yet which is strange me thinks here you resolve the cleane contrary The Church cannot excommunicate the whole Presbytery because they have not received from Christ an office of Rule without their Officers But now if this reason be good then on the other side it might seeme reasonable That the Presbytery might excommunicate the whole Church Apostate because they have received from Christ an office of Rule without the Church No say you They must tell the Church and joyne with the Church in that censure But this is to say and unsay For if the Church must joyne with them then the Church hath received some peece of an Office of Rule which was before denyed If you say they have not received any Office of Rule without their Officers This may imply that with their Officers they have received an Office of Rule which all this while you have seemed to deny allowing them a Liberty but no Rule or Authority And whereas you say They must tell the Church but that cannot be when the Church is Apostate I rejoyne this makes it reasonable to me That there is another Church to which they must tell the offence by way of appeale or else both an erring Presbytery or an Apostate Church have no remedy to recover them instituted by Christ and so the Church a multitude or a Presbytery is not so well provided for as one particular member But you have found a remedy The Church wants not liberty to withdraw from them Is not this even tantamount with excommunication Is it not the execution of that sentence to withdraw especially in your way Excommunication is the contrary to communion Now how doth the Church communicate their Elders Take your owne words As they set up the Presbytery The Keyes p 17. by professing their subjection to them in the Lord so they avoid them that is in sense excommunicate them by professed withdrawing their subjection from them according to God And this is as much as any people doe or need to doe to persons excommunicate unlesse you grant them a power to the very Act and decree of excommunication which as you have clearly done in your other Tract so you doe here giving them a power more than Ministeriall even a Kingly and more than a Kingly power when you say They rule the Church by appointing their owne Officers and likewise in censuring offenders not only by their Officers which is as much as Kings are wont to doe but also by their owne Royall assent which Kings are not wont to doe but only in the execution of Nobles Satis pro imperio 5. The last Liberty of the Church is Liberty of communion with other Churches which is seven wayes exercised c. To this I say in generall This is rather communion of Saints than communion of Churches because in your way every Church is independent and hath no Church-state in relation to any but it s owne members We suppose this communion is the liberty or priviledge of every Christian by vertue of his interest in the generall visible Church and not by any peculiar interest in a particular Congregation He that is a professed Christian and baptized hath a right to all the Ordinances of God where ever he find them As of old he that was a Citizen of Rome or so borne was a freeman through all the Romane Empire and enjoyed the priviledges of a Roman A Christian is a free Deacon in any part of the Christian world A Citizen with the Saints and of the houshold of God Eph. 2.19 And this to me seemes reasonable upon these grounds 1. Because every Christian not yet in a particular Church or Congregation is at liberty to joyne himselfe to any Church tyed by no obligation to one more than another 2. Because it is lawfull for any member of a particular Church upon just reasons to leave that Church and to joyne himselfe to another and nothing can hinder his removall or communion with another Church except he be scandalous c. 3. It was the custome of the first times before Congregations were fixed to adde them to the visible Church were their number lesser or greater and give them communion in all the Ordinances of Christ 4. Because the whole visible Church is but one City one Kingdome though for orders sake divided into severall Corporations It is not so in civill respects A Citizen of one Corporation cannot goe and set up trade in another because they have their severall Charters But in the City of God the Kingdome of Christ there is but one Charter for all and no more is required to admit a man a member of any Congregation but that he professe himselfe a Christian and live accordingly Your New Covenant to tye men to your particular Church that he may not remove without a generall leave will I feare prove a snare and a tyranny worse than yet we can imagine 1. But come we to your particulars First by way of participation of the Lords Supper the members of one Church comming to another Church c. But 1. Why doe you instance in this Ordinance only Have not their children occasionally borne there a liberty also of Baptisme Where neither of the parents can claim right to the Lords Supper there their Infants cannot claime right to Baptisme The way p. 81. Nor the childe of an excommunicate person p. 85. The rather because Baptisme is not administred with respect to this or that Church but to the generall visible Church Unlesse you hold that a man or childe is baptized to no Church but that particular and an Infidell to all the rest Yet some of your brethren will hardly baptize a childe of any but a member of their owne Church which is next doore to
than a passive approbation it might be yeelded but if you meane an actuall or active concurrence that they had not been valid without their votes and consent it s far more than liberty as good authority as any the Apostles and Elders had Obj. But Elders in a Synod have no authority to determine any act to bind the Churches but according to their instructions You answer We doe not so apprehend it For what need Churches send to a Synod for light and direction if they be resolved afore hand how far they will goe Reply Here either you destroy the liberty of the Brethren afore granted and give the Synod a binding power which you seeme to deny or else prevaricate in this cause For according to your principles the Synod hath no power to bind the Churches to stand to their arbitrement for that 's the true power of your Synods under any penall censure only they may withdraw And then I returne you your owne words What need Churches send to a Synod for light and direction c. if they be resolved afore hand how far they will goe 3. Q. Whether the Synod hath power to enjoyne things both in their nature and use indifferent You resolve it negatively 1. From the patterne of Synods Acts 15.28 who enjoyned nothing but necessaries in nature or use Sol. This is an Argument from Scripture negativè they did not here enjoyne any thing but necessaries ergo they had no power to enjoyne things indifferent The consequence is naught 2. The Apostles are commanded to teach what Christ commanded ergo if they teach more they exceed their commission Sol. This Argument is like the former They were to teach what Christ commanded ergo they might teach nothing else in things indifferent They might teach nothing as a commandement of Christ doctrinally in matters of Faith or worship but this hinders not but they might enjoyne some things indifferent as they did forbid the use of some things indifferent in their owne nature viz. bloud and strangled If it be said those were not indifferent in their use at that time I answer There is nothing in the individuall properly indifferent in the use because it fals under some generall rules of Scripture and so is to be used or not used accordingly The question therefore should be Whether a Synod may enjoyne or forbid the use of a thing in its owne nature indifferent And then I should answer affirmatively and defend my selfe by this very president of the Apostles Acts 15. Who did forbid the use of somethings in their owne nature indifferent I would not therefore answer Christ speaketh only of teaching such things which he had commanded as necessary to salvation But I would say Christ speaks of matters of faith or worship That they should teach nothing to be beleeved as a Doctrine of Faith or practised as a part of Gods worship but what he had commanded them Otherwise the Apostles did goe beyond their commission in teaching as necessary to abstaine from bloud c. which Christ never commanded them but rather forbad in abrogating the Ceremoniall Law And whereas you say The Apostle 1 Cor. 14.40 doth not at all enjoyne nor allow the Church to enjoyne such things as decent whose want or whose contrary is not undecent nor such orders whose want or contrary would be no disorder I answer that for men to pray or prophesie with their heads covered or with long haire and women uncovered were things in their owne nature indifferent unlesse you make it necessary as a morall duty for men to pray or prophesie uncovered and women contra which no Interpreters upon that Text doe and yet the Apostle enjoynes the Corinthians so to doe ergo the Synod may doe so too And for your instance of preaching in a gowne A gowne say you is a decent garment to preach in yet such an injunction for Ministers to preach in a gowne is not grounded upon that Text of the Apostle For then a Minister in neglecting to preach in a gowne should neglect the commandement of the Apostle which yet he doth not for if he preach in a cloake he preacheth decently enough True he sins not in point of decency but supposing such a custome in a Church as the custome was for men amongst Corinthians to preach uncovered and the women to be convened in the Congregations the Synod might enjoyne all the Ministers to preach in a gowne as the Apostle did enjoyne them to preach uncovered and he that shall preach in a cloke preaches decently indeed but not orderly and so sins against the Apostles rule of order though not of decency You so speake as if there were only one Rule to be observed or two at most in the use of things indifferent whereas there are at least five to that purpose And by the same reason that the Apostle enjoynes men to keep decency he enjoynes to keep order and so other rules concerning things indifferent Doth not the Apostle complaine of disorder in the Corinthians preaching covered yet the contrary Order was not necessary but in it selfe indifferent The eating of things offered to Idols was a thing in it selfe before that decree of the Apostles indifferent 1 Cor. 10.25 1 Cor. 8.8 yet was now forbidden If you say this was offensive to the Iewes and ergo necessary pro hic nunc I answer this reason made it necessary only where such eating was knowne to be offensive but the Canon made it necessary every where 3. A third reason is taken you say from the nature of the Ministeriall Office in Church or Synod which is stewardly not Lordly and ergo they may dispense no more injunctions to Gods house than Christ hath appointed them I answer its true he may dispense nothing as an institution of Christ but what he hath commanded But yet a Steward may require of the Family and enjoyne them the use of things in themselves indifferent for Order and uniformity As that all shall meet in such an houre in such a place to prayers c. So I thinke you doe in your owne Churches It is indifferent to receive the Lords Supper at Morning or at Evening yet some of you enjoyne it to be done at Evening It is indifferent to baptize in a river in a paile in a Font in a Bason yet I beleeve you enjoyne one of these and forbid the other And whereas you say Christ in these things never provided for uniformity but only for unity I answer then the Apostle exceeded his commission in enjoyning the Corinthians uniformity in their orderly praying or prophecying yea unity is much preserved by uniformity But you propound à question Whether a Synod hath power of Ordination or excommunication And answer 1. That you doubt it was not so from the beginning 2. That if any such occasion should arise amongst you you in a Synod should determine it fit to be done but referre the administration of both to the Presbytery of severall
distributes it among the Officers respectively Then say I your middle way fals out to be the extreme of Brownists who make the people the first subject of all power But I thinke the truth is That the Apostles betrusted the power of the Officers not first with the Churches but with the Officers themselves They and Evangelists ordained Elders in every City not the Churches Paul gives Timothy a charge to commit that which he had received of him to faithfull men that might be able to teach others also 2 Tim. 2.2 To conclude this You said above That the Keyes were distributed into severall hands the Key of Liberty unto the Brethren the Key of Authority unto the Officers and is not this a contradiction to what your first proposition doth assert That the particular Church of Brethren is the first subject of all Church-offices and of all Church-power and so of the Authority of the Officers consider it 3. Propos When the Church of a particular congregation walketh together in the truth and peace the Brethren are the first subject of Church liberty and the Elders thereof of Church-authority and both of all Church-power needfull to be exercised amongst themselves This is very cautelously delivered yet not enough to cover your contradiction Either this proposition is the same with the first or else it contradicts it There you said that the particular congregation of Saints was the first subject of all the Church-offices with all their spirituall gifts and power Now you divide this power between them and the Elders giving the one Church-liberty the other Authority 2. There is a limitation for this too it is but when they walke in truth and Peace But if they walke not so what is the first subject of all that power Have not the Brethren their Liberty and the Elders their Authority as the first Subjects when they differ If so then your caution is idle when they walke in truth and peace If not then neither of them single nor both together are the first subject of all power needfull to be exercised amongst themselves And we shall heare anon a Synod is the first subject of all power needfull to be exercised amongst themselves When there are divisions and factions among them page 47. Yet againe in your other Tract you give the particular Congregation of Brethren the whole power of chusing ordaining Officers and censures of their Officers if they be hereticall 1. That the Brethren are the first subject of Church-liberty you labour to prove thus By removall of any former subject whence they might derive it Not from their Elders for they had power to chuse their owne Elders Not from other Churches for all Churches are equall Not from a Synod they of Antioch borrowed none of their Liberties from Ierusalem I answer the enumeration is not sufficient For though they received it from none of those yet they might derive it from some others namely from the Elders of other Churches by whom they were first converted to the Faith For the Liberties or priviledges that a Congregation hath as distinct from Elders comes to them by vertue of their interest either in the Body mysticall or Catholicke visible Church which is in Order before their membership of a particular Congregation They must be visible Saints before they can gather into a congregation of visible Saints and every one single hath a liberty or priviledge to associate before they can all be associated Now thence it followes that those Elders that first converted them did virtually derive that liberty or priviledge to them Faith comes by hearing How shall they heare without a Preacher Remember your owne words The Keyes p. 10. The Key of knowledge or which is all one the Key of Faith belongeth to all the faithfull whether joyned to any particular Church or no which argueth that the key of knowledge is given not only to the Church but to some before they enter into the Church Now who gave them this key of Faith instrumentally but the Ministers by whom they beleeved Therefore the Church of a particular Congregation are not the first subject of Church-liberty but every particular Beleever hath it first and that derived from some Elders And certainly in the first plantation of Churches the Officers Elders I meane were before the Churches themselves The Planters were before the plantation The Apostles being first converted and ordained by Christ himselfe were sent abroad and converted people many times single afterwards when they were increased they united into Churches Now you suppose the Church to be before the Elders because they chuse their owne Elders which is not generally true Though it may be so in Churches planted yet not in the first plantation of Churches Indeed in your way the Churches are before their Elders and doe chuse and ordaine their Elders but from the beginning it was not so And besides Elders now in order of nature if not in time are before the Churches in all Reformed Churches being ordained for the most part to be Elders before they be Elders to this or that particular Church And though your Churches doe chuse their Elders yet I hope they doe not make or ordaine them Elders but after they are ordained chuse them to be theirs The Keyes p 55. You speake sometimes of translation of an Elder from one Church to another which in my apprehension implyes him an Elder before he be translated to another Church Though I know you are not constant to your selfe herein holding it as a principle Elder and flocke are relates and giving the Brethren without any Officers power not only to chuse but to ordaine their Elders and so your Churches are before their Elders and give them their power by election and ordination and Brownists doe no more I would gladly know a reason why if the Churches had power to chuse and ordaine their owne Officers the Apostle should trouble himselfe and them to send Timothy and Titus to ordaine Elders in every City had it not been easier to have written to the Churches to doe it themselves 2. That the Elders are the first subject of Rule and Authority you endeavour to prove 1. Because the charge of Rule over the Church is committed to them immediately from Christ But this first is contradictory to your first proposition which made the particular congregation the first subject of all Church-officers and all Church-power and the Church communicates and derives that power to the Officers chusing and ordaining them 2. If the charge of Rule be immediately committed to them from Christ how can the Church be the first subject of all power The Apostles indeed had all their power immediately from Christ but other Officers had it immediately from them and from others intrusted by them with that power When you say The Office it selfe is ordained by Christ though the Elders be chosen to their Office by the Church of Brethren You vary the question For the question is not